New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Retainer

Legal area

Court

17 Nov 2017

W L ACE-KIRKER AND M L BAKER AS TRUSTEES OF THE UTOPIA FAMILY TRUST v J PIPER [2017] NZHC 2827

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2827
Court

High Court

Credible evidence showed the plaintiff/trust was presently unable to pay costs and, although the claim's prospects are unclear rather than hopeless, a balancing exercise favored ordering security; accordingly $35,000 security was ordered in tranches with a stay until the first tranche was paid and costs to be fixed on a 2B basis payable at conclusion.
3 May 2012

HAWRIDGE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED V MADELYNNE MCARTHUR HC AK CIV 2012-404-001374

Citation

openlaw-c896f206_f613_44cd_8093_694349f61d6a.pdf
Court

High Court

Respondent issued a statutory demand despite an evident dispute over entitlement (deductions and absence of agreement to pay for domestic services) and failed to communicate the dispute; therefore respondent must pay costs on a scale 2B basis and disbursements as claimed, with further sealing costs if unpaid within the specified time.
3 Nov 2010

JOHN APPLETON AND ANOR V TAURANGA LAW HC TAU CIV-2010-070-385

Citation

openlaw-f55ce429_91b5_40d8_af34_df84f2c98ee1.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment is dismissed because there is a triable issue whether the defendant assumed a duty of care upon receipt of the documents (given familiarity with Blue Chip and referral relationship) and whether failing to advise of the s 225 RMA cancellation within the statutory 14 days amounted to breach; those issues require full hearing of evidence.
20 Dec 2007

KB DEVELOPMENTS INC V YONG KEUN OH AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-002059

Citation

openlaw-eaa5c48e_5fa8_42a4_8e7d_fe6e6c991f4b.pdf
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the plaintiff instructed the first defendant to forward the funds to Max Vision (Mr Saito). The executed basic agreement and surrounding conduct (knowledge that funds had been forwarded, lack of timely protest, amendments and correspondence referring to payment through Kenton Chambers to Max Vision, and the parties' continued negotiations) demonstrate the payment was intended for the Japanese lender and not to be held in trust for the plaintiff. Consequently the plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to repayment and the claims fail.

New Zealand Case Law

W L ACE-KIRKER AND M L BAKER AS TRUSTEES OF THE UTOPIA FAMILY TRUST v J PIPER [2017] NZHC 2827

HAWRIDGE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED V MADELYNNE MCARTHUR HC AK CIV 2012-404-001374

JOHN APPLETON AND ANOR V TAURANGA LAW HC TAU CIV-2010-070-385

KB DEVELOPMENTS INC V YONG KEUN OH AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-002059